hernandez_mendez_edith_et_al_2

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010)

ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected]

240

Oral corrective feedback by EFL teachers at Universidad de

Quintana Roo

Edith Hernández Méndez Rosario Reyes Cruz

Griselda Murrieta Loyo Universidad de Quintana Roo

Abstract This paper aims at analyzing the actual role of corrective feedback in the EFL classes in the English Language Program at Universidad de Quintana Roo. A second goal is to identify the corrective feedback techniques used by the EFL teachers in this program. For this, an exploratory study which integrated documentary and qualitative research was conducted. This article draws on research in second language acquisition (SLA) and language pedagogy in order to examine controversial issues relating to corrective feedback, such as its role in EFL classrooms and the techniques used by teachers. Five language instructors from the English language bachelors „program at the Universidad de Quintana Roo were interviewed. The findings show that the type of correction mostly used by teachers is teacher correction. The techniques more frequently used are repetition of error, recasting, body language and metalinguistic feedback. However, they favor more implicit CF. It also seems that instructors´ target for oral corrective feedback is phonology and morphosyntax, but semantics and pragmatics are the most neglected areas. The provision of corrective feedback seems unsystematic, inconsistent and ambiguous.

Introduction

Although the provision of corrective feedback in the foreign language

classroom seems natural in the process of learning a language, the role that

corrective feedback plays in the classroom and the attitudes language teachers

have towards it have been not same through the years, or even from one teacher

to another. On the other hand, in the theoretical ground, corrective feedback has

also been an area of research and discussion in language acquisition and learning

over the last decades, which has contributed to the debate about this issue.

For the sake of clarity, one of the first definitions of corrective feedback is

that of Chaudron (1977) who considers it as “any reaction of the teacher which


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


241

clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the

learner utterance”. (p: 31). Other synonyms of corrective feedback more commonly

used are “error correction”, “negative evidence” “negative feedback”. However,

Han (2008) suggests that error correction implies an evident and direct correction,

whereas corrective feedback is a more general way of providing some clues, or

eliciting some correction, besides the direct correction made by the teacher. Ellis,

Loewen and Erlam (2006) describe corrective feedback as follows:

Corrective feedback takes the form of responses to learner utterances that contain error. The responses can consist of (a) an indication that an error has been committed, (b) provision of the correct target language form, or (c) metalinguistic information about the nature of the error, or any combination of these. (p. 340).

Interestingly, the role of corrective feedback has been discussed from both

theoretical and pedagogical grounds. While some language acquisition theories

and second language methodologies encourage the use of corrective feedback,

others disfavor its use. Some problems that have arisen with regard to the use of

corrective feedback or its absence in the language classroom are a) the

inconsistency, ambiguity, and ineffectiveness of teachers‟ corrections (Allwright,

1975; Chaudron, 1977; Long, 1977); b) ambiguous, random and unsystematic

feedback on errors by teachers (Lyster and Mori, 2006); c) acceptance of errors for

fear of interrupting the communication; d) wide range of learner error types

addressed as corrective feedback (Lyster and Ranta, 1997). In the context of

Mexico, (Hernández & Murrieta, 2009) observed very limited corrective feedback in

the foreign language classroom, which is associated with problem C.

These problems identified can be a reflection of the teachers ´training,

perceptions, and attitudes regarding corrective feedback. Therefore, this

exploratory study addressed in this paper aimed at analyzing the actual role of

corrective feedback in the EFL classes in the English Language Program at

Universidad de Quintana Roo. Additionally, a second goal is to identify the

corrective feedback techniques used by the EFL teachers in this program. Our

purpose is to explore the issue of corrective feedback in the teaching practice in


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


242

Mexico, and particularly at the Universidad de Quintana Roo, that will lead to

further research.

Since scarce research has been done with regard to corrective feedback

(CF), teachers educators, teachers, pre-service teachers, and language learners

can benefit with this paper as they can learn or reflect about the acquisition of a

second or foreign language, and specifically, about the use of corrective feedback

in their teaching practice.

This is an exploratory study which integrated documentary and qualitative

research. This article draws on research in second language acquisition (SLA) and

language pedagogy in order to examine controversial issues relating to corrective

feedback, such as its role in EFL classrooms and the techniques used by teachers.

Five language instructors from the English language bachelors „program at the

Universidad de Quintana Roo were interviewed. They were chosen considering the

different language levels they teach, and according to their availability and

willingness to participate in this study. They are teachers with ages ranging from 25

to 40, and with a teaching experience from 4 to 10 years. All of them have a

Master´s program (two in Curriculum Design, one in Translation, one in Education,

and one in Education and EFL teaching). The instrument used was a semi-

structured interview with 20 questions approximately. The interviews were

recorded and analyzed considering variables such as: types of errors, the

corrector, frequency of correction, CF techniques, perception of students‟ attitudes,

training, and individual differences.

The paper is organized as follows: an overview of the theoretical and

pedagogical perspectives regarding corrective feedback, and the different types of

errors and corrective feedback are presented. Next, the findings are reported and

discussed. Finally, the conclusions and suggestions make up the last section.

1. The controversial role of corrective feedback in the foreign language

classroom

Ellis (2009) highlight five main controversies concerning corrective

feedback, which we reformulate in questions: does CF contribute to L2


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


243

acquisition? Which errors are to be corrected? Who should correct? (the teacher or

the learner him/herself/) which type of CF is the most effective? And when is better

to do CF? This paper will discuss the first three questions which cover the role of

CF and the techniques or strategies used for CF.

As previously stated, the view and value attributed to CF vary according to

the method or approach being used by the teacher or their beliefs about correction

in the language pedagogy. For example, within the audiolingual method, error

correction played a very important role as both accuracy and fluency were

emphasized. However, within the post-method era, according to Ellis (2009),

language teaching methodologists do not prescribe overtly CF, but while some

acknowledge the cognitive contribution it can make, other scholars warn instructors

about the affective damage it can cause. Other methodologists use the dichotomy

“accuracy‟ and “fluency” to place CF in the former.

In the 1990s, some researchers began to assert that explicit grammar

instruction, error correction, and/or a focus on form could promote SLA (Aljaafreh &

Lantolf, 1994; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, 1993, 1994; Long, 1996; Schmidt,

1990, 1993, 1995). Loewen et al (2009) claim that the controversy concerning CF

can be better understood in terms of meaning-focused instruction versus form-

focused instruction. The former assumes that second language (L2) acquisition

occurs unconsciously and implicitly like first language acquisition (L1).

Comprehensible input and a low affective filter in the learner are essential for

language learning. Advocates of this view claim that overt attention to linguistic

form is not needed, and also see corrective feedback as ineffective (e.g., Krashen,

1981; Newmark & Reibel, 1968; Schwartz, 1993; Terrell, 1977; Truscott, 1999, all

cited by Loewen et al, 2009). Krashen (1982), one of its proponents, suggests that

CF is useless and potentially harmful.

Nevertheless, the meaning-focused instruction has been questioned with

regard to its effectiveness. Research suggests that learners‟ production shows

grammatical inaccuracy even after years of exposure to the target language. This

situation has been associated with a lack of noticing and practicing linguistic forms


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


244

on behalf of the learners. These findings suggest therefore that form-focused

instruction can benefit language learners.

Form-focused instruction (FFI) is defined by Ellis (2001:1) as “any planned

or incidental instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners to

pay attention to linguistic forms”. This term, however, has been reinterpreted and

some scholars distinguish between focus on forms and focus on form. The former

refers to the:

[ ] division of the language according to lexis, structures, notions or functions, which are selected and sequenced for students to learn in a uniform and incremental way” (Klapper & Rees, 2003: 288).

Within this type, there is obviously no communicative context. Conversely,

focus on form favors attention to linguistic structures within the context of meaning-

focused, communicative activities (Ellis, 2001; Long, 1991, 1996). Long claims that

attention to meaning is not enough for acquisition to occur; some attention to form

is needed. Further the notion of attention, Schmidt (1995, 2001) draws on the

concept and importance of noticing as paramount in language acquisition.

Learners must consciously notice input for L2 learning to occur. From this

perspective, according to Kim (n.d.), corrective feedback seems to be beneficial to

language learners as it stimulates noticing and triggers them to recognize the gap

between their interlanguage and the target norm. This will consequently lead them

to grammatical restructuring.

Some other concepts closely related to these views of focus on form, and

focus on meaning instruction are explicit and implicit corrective feedback,

respectively. Ellis et al (2006) point out that in implicit CF there is no overt indicator

that an error has been committed, whereas in explicit feedback types, there is.

Schachter (1991 cited by El Tatawi, n.d.) classifies a grammatical explanation or

overt error, or metalinguistic explanation in explicit feedback; and implicit correction

includes, but is not limited to, confirmation checks, repetitions, recasts, clarification

requests, silence, and even facial expressions that express confusion. It is

precisely in next section where a brief description of the strategies for providing

corrective feedback is presented.


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


245

2. Types of errors and types of corrective feedback

2.1 Error types

When correcting, it is paramount to identify the type of error the learners

make because it is not always the case teachers want or need to correct

everything. Errors have been categorized by Mackey et al. (2000) and Nishita

(2004 cited by Yoshida, 2008) as:

(1) Morphosyntactic error. Learners incorrectly use word order, tense,

conjugation and particles.

(2) Phonological error. Learners mispronounce words (or we suggest it

could also include suprasegmental errors).

(3) Lexical error. Learners use vocabulary inappropriately or they

codeswitch to their first language because of their lack of lexical

knowledge.

(4) Semantic and pragmatic error. Misunderstanding of a learner‟s

utterance, although there is not any grammatical, lexical or phonological

errors.

2.2. Participants in the corrective feedback

Considering the participant(s) in the corrective feedback interaction, there is

the following possibilities:

Self-correction is possible when the learner realizes that he has committed a

mistake and repairs it by providing a correct form in place of the wrong one. Self

correction seems to be preferred to correction provided by others: it is face-saving

and allows the learner to play an active role in the corrective event.

Peer correction occurs when one learner corrects another one. This kind of

correction is appreciated for a number of reasons. Its most important advantages

are the following: both learners are involved in face-to-face interaction; the teacher

obtains information about learners‟ current abilities; learners co-operate in

language learning and become less teacher-dependent; peer correction does not

make errors a public affair, which protects the learners‟ ego and increases their

self-confidence.


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


246

Teacher-correction. The person to correct the errors is the teacher. The teacher

knows the problem and the solution, and can define and put things simply so that

the student can understand the mistake. The student should trust and respect

his/her place as a fluent speaker of English.

2.3. Techniques used in corrective feedback

Recast involves the teacher‟s reformulation of all or part of a student‟s utterance,

minus the error. Spada and Fröhlich (1995; cited in Lyster and Randa 1997) also

refer to such reformulations as “paraphrase”. Recasts are generally implicit in that

they are not introduced by phrases such as “You mean,” “Use this word,” and “You

should say.” However, some recasts are more salient than others in that they may

focus on one word only, whereas others incorporate the grammatical or lexical

modification into a sustained piece of discourse. Recasts also include translations

in response to a student‟s use of the L1. (Lyster and Randa, 1997).

Clarification request: According to Spada and Fröhlich (1995 cited in Lyster and

Randa, 1997), indicates to students either that their utterance has been

misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way and

that a repetition or a reformulation is required. This is a feedback type that can

refer to problems in either comprehensibility or accuracy, or both. A clarification

request includes phrases such as “Pardon me” and, in French, “Hein?” It may also

include a repetition of the error as in “What do you mean by X?” (Lyster and

Randa, 1997).

Metalinguistic feedback contains either comments, information, or questions

related to the well-formedness of the student‟s utterance, without explicitly

providing the correct form. Metalinguistic comments generally indicate that there is

an error somewhere. Metalinguistic information generally provides either some

grammatical metalanguage that refers to the nature of the error (e.g., “It‟s

masculine”) or a word definition in the case of lexical errors. Metalinguistic

questions also point to the nature of the error but attempt to elicit the information

from the student (e.g., “Is it feminine?”). (Lyster and Randa, 1997)


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


247

Elicitation: According to Lyster this type of feedback refers to at least three

techniques that teachers use to directly elicit the correct form from the student.

First, teachers elicit completion of their own utterance by strategically pausing to

allow students to “fill in the blank” as it were (e.g., “C‟est un . . . ”). Such “elicit

completion” moves may be preceded by some metalinguistic comment such as

“No, not that. It‟s a . . . ” or by a repetition of the error as in the following example:

(1997)

Repetition of error refers to the teacher‟s repetition, in isolation, of the student‟s

erroneous utterance. In most cases, teachers adjust their intonation so as to

highlight the error. (Lyster and Randa, 1997)

Body Language does not use an oral response. With this type of error correction

the teacher uses either a facial expression or a body movement to indicate the

student what he/she said is incorrect. Among which, frown, head shaking, etc,

were observed. (Shujen S. Yao, 2000)

3. Findings

Below we report the data obtained from the interviews to instructors in the

English Language Program at Universidad de Quintana Roo. For this, we have

divided the information in different sections.

3.1. The importance of corrective feedback in learning a foreign

language

In particular, these teachers interviewed see corrective feedback to be used

at the beginning of the learning process for two main reasons: beginners are less

reluctant to correction than advanced learners, and secondly, because by using

corrective feedback with beginners, fossilization can be prevented. They also

agreed that CF ought to be used tactfully considering students‟ attitudes toward

corrective feedback. It seems these instructors see CF as a something that can

damage the learner‟s feelings and the process of learning if used very frequently

and regardless the personality or emotions of the students. That is probably why


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


248

most of them try to get to know their students very well and find out who likes or

dislikes receiving any corrective feedback.

All the instructors agreed that if communication and meaning is the goal of

an activity, then CF has no place. That is, they seem to be afraid of using CF for

fear of interrupting the flow of communication in some activities and of inhibiting the

learners‟ participation.

Accordingly, these instructors favor the use of more implicit CF techniques

rather than explicit ones. Some teachers stated that CF can help learners to gain

fluency and improve their speaking skill.

3.2 Types of errors

When these teachers were asked about the types of errors they corrected,

all of them thought about pronunciation, and particularly, they were talking about

pronunciation of segments. Two teachers mentioned the correction of intonation in

advanced levels. The next error types brought up by these instructors can be

classified into morphosyntactic and lexical errors. Semantic and pragmatic errors

were not mentioned.

3.3. Corrective feedback techniques

With regard to the question of who corrects in the classroom, all teachers

use self-correction, teacher correction and peer correction. Teacher correction is

the most preferred one. It seems natural for everyone to correct and be corrected

by the teacher, the expert and knowledgeable person.

Self-correction was thought of as the set of strategies learners use to get rid

of their errors by themselves, not at the moment of making the error, but as a

subsequent step outside the classroom, and after having noticed the error. When

self-correction, understood as the one that students make as uptake just after the

error was made, was made clear to them, all teachers agreed they use it to some

extent, but not very often. One teacher sees self-correction in the classroom as the

best way of making corrective feedback.


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


249

Peer-correction is used cautiously by these instructors as learners‟

personalities and relationships among them play a crucial role for the application of

this technique. They see peer-correction as a technique that is depended on

factors as learners‟ attitudes towards their classmates, personalities, age, self-

esteem, and so on. They suggest teachers must get to know their students very

well before using correction between peers.

As to the techniques used by the teachers interviewed, they reported:

Body language.

Recasts

Repetition of error

Metalinguistic feedback.

Although metalinguistic feedback was included as one technique used, the

instructors made it clear that they don‟t use it directly and individually, that is, they

take notes of the errors learners made during an activity and at the end of such a

task, the instructors, addressing the whole class, explain the problem of the error

and give examples. They rarely use metalinguistic feedback to refer to a learner‟s

error in particular. Some of them emphasized the fact that this technique was

employed only when students find it difficult to understand why and what the error

was about. For complicated or difficult issues, these instructors said to favor the

metalinguistic feedback.

Repetition of error and recasts were the techniques most declared. These

teachers think that implicit corrective feedback is better as learners‟ emotions are

not affected. In addition, communication is not inhibited as they let students speak,

and the correction is such as indirect that learners do not feel any “harm” from the

correction provided.

While the techniques mentioned by these teachers seem varied, the

problem observed is, rather than the techniques themselves, the unsystematic and

ambiguous way of providing corrective feedback. Through the interviews, teachers

agreed that some techniques, such as recast and repetition of error can be

ambiguous and that some students do not even notice the correction. However,


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


250

they still insisted on using these techniques over metalinguistic corrective

feedback, or more explicit ways of CF. Moreover, these instructors never brought

up any plan or way of organization regarding CF. None said anything about

following a plan on how to correct what and when. We could infer teachers correct

any type of mistake (phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical) based only on the

criterion of how much they were affecting the meaning of the message to be

conveyed. Errors could then be interpreted as those that indeed prevent

communication, but it seems there are other “minor” errors that are neglected.

3.4 Effectiveness of corrective feedback

These teachers acknowledge that metalinguistic feedback is effective, but

they claim the implicit techniques for CF are more pertinent and tactful because

you consider your students‟ styles, attitudes and personalities. Teachers seem very

concerned with learners‟ emotions and are afraid of causing them anything that

may de-motivate them from learning the language.

4. Conclusions

Oral corrective feedback in the English Language Program at Universidad

de Quintana Roo plays an important role in the teaching of English as a Foreign

Language as it is used frequently in the classroom by the teachers interviewed.

However, the provision of CF seems inconsistent, ambiguous and unsystematic.

There is a need for teachers to provide CF clear enough to be perceived by

learners as such.

Although teachers do employ different techniques for CF, they seem more

concerned with the learners‟ feelings and emotions and are afraid of de-motivating

them. However, these perceptions can be understood as a need to provide CF in a

more systematic and consistent way. Teachers should not correct every error, or

neglect all of them. They need to use techniques that are effective and that allow

for time and opportunity for repair. Teachers agreed that their students do ask for

CF and accept correction. So the question to think about is whether teachers‟

intentions overlap with the learner‟s attitudes and emotions.


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


251

References

Aljaafreh, A. & J. Lantolf. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in

the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.

Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher‟s treatment of error. In M. K.

Burt & H. D. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL ’75: New directions in second language learning,

teaching, and bilingual education (pp. 96-109). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of

learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.).

El Tatawy Mounira ( no date )Corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Teachers‟

college. Columbia University.

Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91-

113.

Ellis, R. (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2001). Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Language

learning, 51:Supplement 1, 391-.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 1, 3-18.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition

of L2 grammar. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368. CUP: USA.

Han, Z.H. (2008, November). Error correction: Towards a differential approach. The Fourth QCC

Colloquium on Second Language Acquisition. New York, New York. Video.

Hernández, E. y Murrieta, G. (2009). La enseñanza de la pronunciación en las clases de inglés. En

Reyes, M.R. Coordinadora. Creencias, estrategias y pronunciación en el aprendizaje de

lenguas extranjeras. Universidad de Quintana Roo.

Kim, J.H. Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working Papers in TESOL

& Applied Linguistics, 4, 2. Teachers College, Columbia University

Klapper, J. & Rees, J. (2003). Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university

foreign language learning context. Language teaching research, 7, 285-314.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:

Pergamon Institute of English.

Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thomson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., and Chen, X. (2009). The

modern language Journal,93,1, 91-104.


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


252

Long, M.. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C.

A., & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL '77. Teaching and learning English as a Second

Language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 278-94). Washington, D.C.:TESOL.

Reprinted in Robinett, B. W., & Schachter, J. (ed.), Second language learning: Contrastive

analysis, error analysis, and related aspects (pp. 446-65). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press, 1993.

Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie

& B. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York:

Academic Press.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.

Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., Nakatsukasa, K. (2007)

Teachers‟s intentions and learners‟ perceptions about corrective feedback on the L2

classroom. Innovation in Language learning and teaching, 1, 1, 129-152.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention

and awareness. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching

and learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 1-64). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Schmidt, R. (1990).The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,

129-158.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.

3-32), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers‟ choice and learners‟ preference of corrective feedback types.

Language awareness, 17, 1, 78-93.

Biodata Dra. Edith Hernández Méndez. Licenciatura en Lengua Inglesa en la Universidad Veracruzana, Maestría en Enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera por la Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Maestría y Doctorado en Lingüística Hispánica por la Ohio State University. Especialidad: adquisición de lenguas, enseñanza y aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras, estudios variacionistas. Contacto: [email protected] Dra. María del Rosario Reyes Cruz. Licenciatura en Lengua Francesa en la Universidad Veracruzana, Maestría en Psicopedagogía en la Universidad de la Habana, doctora en educación internacional por la Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. Especialidad: teoría de la educación, creencias pedagógicas, uso de tecnología

mailto:[email protected]


ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0


253

Contacto: [email protected] Mtra. Griselda Murrieta Loyo. Licenciatura en lengua inglesa (área de concentración Traducción) y lengua francesa por la Universidad Veracruzana y maestría en Lingüística y Lenguas por la Universidad de Manchester, Inglaterra. Especialidad: lenguas en contacto: lenguas criollas, bilingüismo, preservación de lengua materna, estrategias de aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras Contacto: [email protected]



Documents

hernandez_mendez_edith_et_al_2